{"id":"alj-H207751-2024-09-25","awcc_number":"H207751","decision_date":"2024-09-25","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Jenifer Williams","employer_name":"Home To Community Living, Inc","title":"WILLIAMS VS. HOME TO COMMUNITY LIVING, INC. AWCC# H207751 September 24, 2024","outcome":"affirmed","outcome_keywords":["affirmed:1","granted:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","concussion"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WILLIAMS_JENIFER_H207751_20240925.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"WILLIAMS_JENIFER_H207751_20240925.pdf","text_length":25996,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H207751 \n \nJENIFER L. WILLIAMS,  \nEMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nHOME TO COMMUNITY LIVING, INC. \nUNINSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION  \nCOMMISSION COMPLIANCE DIVISION, \nINS. CARRIER/TPA  RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 24, 2024 \n \nHearing  before  the  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  (the  Commission), \nAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens, on July 2, 2024, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas.  \n \nThe claimant, Ms. Jennifer L. Williams, appeared pro se.  \nThe uninsured respondent was represented by the Honorable Caleb Ben Baumgardner, Sutter & \nGillham, PLLC, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.  \n \nINTRODUCTION \n           In the prehearing order filed April 5, 2024, the parties agreed to the following stipulations, \nwhich they affirmed on the record: \n \n 1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) has \n  jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The employer/employee/carrier-TPA relationship existed with the claimant at all \nrelevant times including September 11, 2022, when the claimant allegedly sustained \ninjuries to various parts of her body as the result of an alleged work-related assault. \n \n3. The parties shall exchange wage records and confer as soon as possible and be \nprepared  to  stipulate to  the  claimant’s  average  weekly  wage  (AWW)  and  the \ncorresponding indemnity benefit rates preferably before or at the hearing. \n \n4. The respondent has controverted this claim in its entirety. \n \n \n\nJenifer L. Williams, AWCC No. H207751 \n \n2 \n \n \n5. The parties specifically reserve any and all other issues for future determination \nand/or litigation. \n \n(Commission’s Exhibit 1 at 1-2; Hearing Transcript at 7-9) (Emphasis in original). At the hearing \nthe parties supplemented these stipulations by agreeing to an AWW of $510, which corresponds to \nweekly indemnity rates of $340 for temporary total disability (TTD), and $255 for permanent \npartial disability (PPD) benefits, if the claim is deemed compensable. (Comms’n Ex. 1 at 2; T. 7-\n9).  \n          Pursuant to the parties’ mutual agreement the issues litigated at the hearing were: \n \n1. Whether the claimant sustained compensable injuries within the meaning of the \nArkansas’ Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) to her various parts of her body as \nthe result of an alleged work-related assault which occurred on September 11, 2022. \n \n2. Whether the claimant’s alleged injuries were substantially occasioned by the use of \nalcohol or other intoxicants; and/or whether the claimant provoked the assault and/or \nwhether the assault was personal, and not work-related, in nature. \n \n3. If the claimant’s alleged injuries are deemed compensable, the extent to which she is \nentitled to medical and indemnity benefits. \n  \n4. If the claimant hires an attorney, whether the claimant’s attorney is entitled to a \ncontroverted fee on these facts. \n \n5. The parties specifically reserve any and all other issues for future determination \nand/or litigation. \n \n(Comms’n Ex. 1 at 2; T. 7-9). \n \n        The claimant contends that on September 11, 2022, she sustained injuries to various parts of \nher body as the result of an alleged work-related assault. The claimant contends she is entitled to \npayment of her related, reasonably necessary medical treatment, and to commensurate indemnity \nbenefits as the evidence and Act require. The claimant reserves any and all other issues for future \ndetermination and/or litigation. (Comms’n Ex. 1 at 2-3; T. 7-9). \n\nJenifer L. Williams, AWCC No. H207751 \n \n3 \n \n        The uninsured respondent, Home to Community Living, Inc. (the uninsured respondent; the \nrespondent; or HCL) contends that although the claimant alleges a work-related incident occurred \non or about September 11, 2022, she did not submit paperwork, nor did she report any alleged \ninjury(ies) to HCL until September 14, 2022. The respondent contends the paperwork the claimant \nsubmitted to HCL on 9/14/2022 was dated September 12, 2022, and included a discharge summary \nindicating she had been treated for a facial contusion and could return to work on September 13, \n2022. The respondent contends the alleged injury(ies) did not occur at work, and that the claimant \ncannot meet her burden of proof in demonstrating her injury(ies) is (are) “compensable” within \nthe Act’s definition. The respondent further contends that if the claimant’s alleged injury(ies) \noccurred at work, it (they) was (were) substantially occasioned by the use of alcohol; and/or the \nclaimant provoked the incident that allegedly resulted in her injury(ies) and, therefore, the assault \nwas  personal and  not  work-related in  nature. Finally,  the  respondent  reserved the  right  to \nsupplement its contentions to assert any and all other applicable defenses and arguments upon the \ncompletion of necessary investigation and discovery; and it specifically reserved any and all other \nissue(s) for future determination and/or litigation. (Comms’n Ex. 1 at 3; T. 7-9). \n          The record herein consists of the hearing transcript, and any and all exhibits contained \ntherein and attached thereto.  \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n          The claimant, Ms. Jenifer L. Williams (the claimant), is 27 years old. She has a G.E.D. and \nhas been employed in various positions such as a cook and food service worker with different \nemployers caring for elderly and physically/mentally challenged and/or disabled patients. She \ncurrently works as a cook at Colonel Glenn Health & Rehab where she began working in May of \n2021. Approximately two (2) days after the date of the alleged subject injury – September 11, 2022 \n\nJenifer L. Williams, AWCC No. H207751 \n \n4 \n \n(9/11/2022) – the claimant returned to work for the uninsured respondent-employer, HCL, where \nshe continued to work until late October 2022 or early November 2022. In early December 2022 the \nclaimant became associated with HireQuest, a temporary service, through which she obtained a job \nwith the Arkansas Heart Hospital for a period of time. (T. 19-22; 43-47). \n          On the date of the subject incident, 9/11/2022, the claimant was working the 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. \nshift at HCL, where her job duties included cooking for, taking food to, and washing clothes for \nthree (3) mentally challenged and/or disabled patients. At about 3-4 a.m., on September 11, 2022, \nthe claimant apparently had been asked to go to a room shared by two (2) male patients to ask that \nthey turn down their music. She testified she was supposed to keep the two (2) patients “apart”, but \nshe  apparently  was  having  some  difficulty  doing  so  because  she  called  Thomas  (Brooks),  a \nsupervisor, for assistance. The claimant testified she was sitting in the room writing a required job-\nrelated report concerning what the patients were doing, and what she was doing when one of the \npatients who had behavioral issues (Mr. Jesse Poole) came over to her and started hitting her, \npunching her in the head and face. She testified Mr. Poole hit her about the head and face five (5) \nor six (6) times causing bruising, swelling, headaches, and dizziness, that he broke her phone, and \nshe never hit him back. (T. 22-31; 33-36; 37-73).  \n          The claimant testified she called 911 and the police and an ambulance responded to the call. \nShe was sitting in the back of the ambulance when Mr. Thomas Brooks and Mr. Elwood Marks, \nsupervisors and employees of HCL, took pictures of her injuries. The claimant also took pictures of \nher injuries after the incident, which she gave to HCL. Neither party introduced any pictures of the \nclaimant’s injuries into evidence at the hearing. The claimant testified she did not ride in the \nambulance to the hospital because Mr. Brooks told her it would cost $1,000 if she rode in it, so she \nrode to the hospital, CHI St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center (St. Vincent) in Little Rock, with \n\nJenifer L. Williams, AWCC No. H207751 \n \n5 \n \nMr. Elwood Marks. She denied refusing to ride in the ambulance, thus allegedly refusing medical \ncare. (T. 23-73).  \n          Following her evaluation and treatment at St. Vincent the claimant initially was diagnosed \nwith: “Facial contusion. Headache-Recurrent; Post concussion syndrome; Recurrent headache.”  \nRespondent’s Exhibit 4 at 1-2). The claimant underwent tests, evaluations, and treatment from \nSeptember 11, 2022, through November 11, 2022, incurring approximately $4,000 to $5,000 in \nmedical bills, which remain unpaid. (RX4 at 1-136; T. 25-73). The health care professionals also \nprovided her medical information concerning post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and post-\nconcussion syndrome. (RX4 at 108-125).  \n          The claimant testified she had no personal relationship with her assailant, Mr. Poole; and she \ndenied the respondent’s allegations she had accused Mr. Poole of homosexual activity, thus allegedly \nprompting  his  attack.  She  also denied she  was  intoxicated  or  otherwise  impaired, which  the \nrespondents allege substantially occasioned the assault and her injuries. It is an undisputed fact the \nrespondent did not require the claimant to undergo any drug or alcohol testing following the subject \n9/11/2022  work  incident;  therefore,  the  record  is  devoid  of  any  drug  or  alcohol  test  results \nwhatsoever. (T. 32-73; 204-205; Respondent’s Exhibits 1-4). \n          The  claimant testified  that  her mother,  Ms.  Marilyn  G. Willimas, took her to  work on \nSeptember 10, 2022, the evening before the early morning 9/11/2022 work incident occurred, for \nthe beginning of her 7 p.m. – 7 a.m. shift at HCL. Ms. Marilyn Williams testified in person at the \nhearing and, under oath, corroborated the claimant’s testimony. (T. 57-58; 74-87). The claimant’s \nmother in essence testified the claimant showed no evidence of intoxication or impairment when \nshe dropped her off at work on the evening of September 10, 2022, before the beginning of her \nSeptember 10-11, 2022, 7 p.m. – 7 a.m. shift. (T. 75-87). One of the respondent’s witnesses, Mr. \n\nJenifer L. Williams, AWCC No. H207751 \n \n6 \n \nLeroy Jones, Jr., a former paramour of the claimant, initially testified he had taken the claimant to \nwork in the morning for her shift at HCL on 9/11/2022, the day of the alleged incident, and that she \nhad asked him to stop at a Circle K on the way to work where he alleged she purchased a 24-ounce \nbeer which she was drinking on the way to work and as she got out of the car to go into work. Later, \nafter  prompting  questions  on  re-cross  examination  from  the  respondent’s  attorney,  Mr.  Jones \nchanged the story he told on direct examination and said he took the claimant to work in the evening, \nnot the morning. (T. 88-116).  \n          The respondents called a total four (4) witnesses to testify at the hearing: Mr. Leroy Jones, Jr.; \nMr. Thomas Brooks; Mr. Jesse Poole, the assailant; and the uninsured respondent’s/HCL’s owner, \nMs.  Rasheema  Britt. (T.  159-173). Also,  among  other  documentary  evidence the  respondent \nintroduced a report dated “Friday, December 30, 2022”, almost three (3) months after the date of \nthe subject 9/11/2022 work incident, which they prepared allegedly pursuant to a self-investigation \nthey had undertaken after the 9/11/2022 incident. (Respondents’ Exhibit 1 at 1-3). The respondent \nintroduced this report in support of their contentions the assault was substantially occasioned by the \nclaimant’s alleged intoxication, and that she allegedly provoked the assault by – again, allegedly – \naccusing Mr. Poole of homosexual activity, thus rendering it personal and nonwork-related in nature. \nEach of the respondent’s witnesses, whose testimony relevant to this opinion will be discussed as \nneeded in more detail in the “Discussion” section, infra, ostensibly testified in support of HCL’s \npurported findings contained in this report. (T. 88-203). \nDISCUSSION \n The Burden of Proof \n  When deciding any issue, the ALJ and the Commission shall determine, on the basis of the \nrecord  as  a  whole,  whether  the  party  having  the  burden  of  proof  has  established  it  by  a \n\nJenifer L. Williams, AWCC No. H207751 \n \n7 \n \npreponderance of the evidence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(2) (2024 Lexis Replacement). The \nclaimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence he is entitled to benefits. \nStone v. Patel, 26 Ark. App. 54, 759 S.W.2d 579 (Ark. App. 1998). Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-\n704(c)(3) (2024 Lexis Repl.) states that the ALJ, the Commission, and the courts “shall strictly \nconstrue” the Act, which also requires them to read and construe the Act in its entirety, and to \nharmonize its provisions when necessary. Farmers Coop. v. Biles, 77 Ark. App. 1, 69 S.W.2d 899 \n(Ark.  App.  2002).  In  determining  whether  the  claimant  has  met  his  burden  of  proof,  the \nCommission is required to weigh the evidence impartially without giving the benefit of the doubt \nto either party. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(4) (2024 Lexis Repl.); Gencorp Polymer Products \nv. Landers, 36 Ark. App. 190, 820 S.W.2d 475 (Ark. App. 1991); Fowler v. McHenry, 22 Ark. App. \n196, 737 S.W.2d 633 (Ark. App. 1987). \n  All claims for workers’ compensation benefits must be based on proof. Speculation and \nconjecture, even if plausible, cannot take the place of proof. Ark. Dep’t of Corrections v. Glover, 35 \nArk. App. 32, 812 S.W.2d 692 (Ark. App. 1991); Deana Constr. Co. v. Herndon, 264 Ark. 791, 595 \nS.W.2d 155 (1979). It is the Commission’s exclusive responsibility to determine the credibility of \nthe witnesses and the weight to give their testimony. Whaley v. Hardees, 51 Ark. App. 116, 912 \nS.W.2d 14 (Ark. App. 1995). The Commission is not required to believe either a claimant’s or any \nother witness’s testimony but may accept and translate into findings of fact those portions of the \ntestimony it deems believable. McClain v. Texaco, Inc., 29 Ark. App. 218, 780 S.W.2d 34 (Ark. \nApp. 1989); Farmers Coop. v. Biles, supra.  \n  The Commission has the duty to weigh the medical evidence just as it does any other \nevidence, and its resolution of the medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. \nWilliams v. Pro Staff Temps., 336 Ark. 510, 988 S.W.2d 1 (1999). It is within the Commission’s \n\nJenifer L. Williams, AWCC No. H207751 \n \n8 \n \nprovince to weigh the totality of the medical evidence and to determine what evidence is most \ncredible given the totality of the credible evidence of record. Minnesota Mining & Mfg’ing v. Baker, \n337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999). A claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted.  \nNix  v.  Wilson  World  Hotel,  46  Ark.  App.  303,  879  S.W.2d  457  (1994).    The  determination  of  a \nwitness’s credibility and how much weight to accord that person’s testimony are solely up to the \nCommission.  White v. Gregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001). \n         In order to prove a compensable injury as a result of a specific incident the claimant must \nestablish  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence:  (1)  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of \nemployment;  (2)  that  the  injury  caused  internal  or  external  harm  to  the  body  which  required \nmedical services or resulted in disability or death; (3) medical evidence supported by objective \nfindings, as defined in Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16), establishing the injury; and (4) that the \ninjury was caused by a specific incident identifiable by  time  and  place  of  occurrence. Ark. \nCode Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (2024 Lexis Replacement).  \n        Ark.  Code  Ann. Section  11-9-102(4)(B)(iv)(a)  (2024  Lexis  Repl.) specifically  excludes \nfrom the definition of “compensable injury” an injury “substantially occasioned by the use of \nalcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs used in contravention of a physician’s orders.” Ark. \nCode Ann. Section 11-9-102(4)(B)(iv)(b) (2024  Lexis Repl.) states: “The presence of alcohol, \nillegal drugs, or prescription drugs used in contravention of a physician’s orders shall create a \nrebuttable  presumption  that  the  injury  or  accident  was  substantially  occasioned  by  the  use  of \nalcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs used in contravention of a physician’s orders.” And \nsee, e.g., Rudick v. Unifirst Corp., 60 Ark. App. 173, 962 S.W.2d 819 (Ark. App. 1998); ERC \nContractor  Yard  &  Sales,  v.  Robertson,  60  Ark.  App.  310,  961  S.W.2d  36 (Ark.  App.  1998), \naff’d, 335 Ark. 63, 977 S.W.2d 212 (Ark. 1998). \n\nJenifer L. Williams, AWCC No. H207751 \n \n9 \n \n          The Act also specifically excludes from the definition of “compensable injury” an “[i]njury \nof any active participant in assaults or combats which, although they may occur in the workplace, \nare the result of nonemployment-related hostility or animus of one, both, or all of the combatants \nand which assault or combat amounts to a deviation from customary duties,” or an injury that was \n“inflicted upon the employee at a time when employment services were not being performed.” \n(Bracketed material added). Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-102(4)(B)(i), (iii) (2024 Lexis Repl.); \nand see, Dorn  v.  Housing  Authority  of  the  City  of  Pine  Bluff,  2017  Ark.  App.  309  (Ark.  App. \n2017) (Slip Opinion); Bryan v. Best Western/Coachman’s Inn, 47 Ark. App. 75, 885 S.W.2d 28 \n(Ark. App. 1994). \n          Based on the applicable law as applied to the facts of this case, I find the claimant has met \nher burden of proof in demonstrating she sustained compensable injuries to her head and face as \na  result  of  the  undisputed  work-related  assault  of  September  11,  2022.  I  further  find  the \nrespondent  has  failed  to  meet  its  burden of  proof  in  demonstrating  the assault  was  either \nsubstantially occasioned  by the use of  alcohol, or that the  claimant provoked it, allegedly thus \nrendering it personal and nonwork-related in nature, for the following reasons. \n          First, there exists such a preponderance of evidence – both in the form of the witnesses’ \ntestimony  and  the  documentary  evidence  of  record – making  it  abundantly  clear  that  on \nSeptember 11, 2022, Mr. Jesse Poole, a patient under HCL’s care, assaulted the claimant and hit \nher about the head and face causing injuries to her head and face that required immediate medical \nattention, evaluation, and treatment. Indeed, by their witnesses’ own admissions the respondent \nwas aware of the assault on the very morning it occurred, and very soon after it occurred. In fact, \nMr. Thomas Brooks, HCL’s community director, testified the claimant called him in the early \nmorning  hours  telling  him  about  the  incident,  and  that  he  was  at  HCL  when  the  police  and \n\nJenifer L. Williams, AWCC No. H207751 \n \n10 \n \nambulance  arrived  after  the  claimant  called  911.  (T.  138-144). Consequently,  based  on  all  the \ncredible evidence of record it is beyond reasonable dispute the claimant was injured as a result of \nMr. Poole’s assault of 9/11/2022, and that this assault occurred within the course and scope of \nher employment.   \n          Second, there exists grossly insufficient credible evidence of record demonstrating either \nthat the claimant’s injuries were substantially  occasioned  by  the  use  of  alcohol,  or  that she \nprovoked the assault thereby somehow making it personal and nonwork-related in nature. Again, \none need only look as far as the testimony of the respondent’s own witnesses to  conclude – \nespecially in light of the entirety of the credible evidence of record – that the respondent’s failed \nto  even  meet  the  burden  of  proof  necessary  to raise the rebuttable presumption the claimant’s \ninjuries were substantially occasioned by the use of alcohol. See, Rudick and ERC, supra.  \n          Mr.  Brooks, HCL’s community director, testified he was the author of the respondent’s \n“investigative report” dated 12/30/2022; that he did not smell alcohol on the claimant’s breath \nafter Mr. Poole assaulted her, nor did he apparently see any signs of intoxication as he testified \nhe never asked the claimant to undergo an alcohol or drug test, nor did he request or cause anyone \nto conduct such a test. There exists no evidence the police who responded to the claimant’s 911 \ncall following the 9/11/2022 incident, or that the health care providers who evaluated and treated \nher after the incident, were concerned the claimant was or may have been intoxicated or otherwise \nimpaired by alcohol at the time of the incident. (RX4 at 1-36). \n          Significantly,  after having  had  the  opportunity to personally observe Mr. Leroy Jones’s \ndemeanor, and to  make other  relevant  personal  observations  as  he  testified (including  but  not \nlimited to his looking at and making eye contact with HCL’s owner, Ms. Rasheema Britt, as if to \ndiscern her reactions to various parts of his testimony); having had the opportunity to not only \n\nJenifer L. Williams, AWCC No. H207751 \n \n11 \n \npersonally hear his testimony, but to read it in the transcript, and to consider it in light of all the \nother  credible  evidence  of  record,  I  find  his  testimony  to  be  obviously  biased, inconsistent, \napparently contrived and, in short, incredible on these facts. (T. 88-203).  \n          Third, specifically concerning the respondent’s contention the claimant allegedly provoked \na dispute that was nonwork-related in nature, Mr. Brooks, HCL’s community director, testified \nhe  had  no  personal  knowledge  as  to  whether  the  claimant  had in  fact accused Mr.  Poole,  the \nmentally challenged/disabled HCL patient who attacked and assaulted her in the early morning \nhours of 9/11/2022, of engaging in homosexual activity. Moreover, even if (T. 123-28; T. 118-\n54). \n          Fourth,  while  I excluded  it  and did  not consider Mr.  Poole’s proffered  testimony  in \nrendering the opinion herein,  I found it telling and somewhat desperate – even disingenuous –  \nthe respondent’s even attempted to elicit the testimony of an admittedly and obviously mentally \nchallenged  and/or disabled young man, who obviously did not understand what was going on, \nand who on more than one (1) occasion looked at HCL’s owner, Ms. Britt, in what any reasonable \nperson would interpret to be his attempt to determine her reaction to what he was saying. It proved \nto be an exercise in futility to subject Mr. Poole to the stress of testifying on direct examination \nand being cross-examined at a hearing when it was readily apparent to one and all (including, in \nthe end, the respondent’s attorney) he was legally incompetent to testify, and appeared to be even \nfearful of doing so. (T. 155-172). \n          On the whole, I found the preponderance of the respondent’s witnesses’ testimony in \nsupport of their contentions to be (at least a reasonable trier of fact may reasonably conclude it to \nbe, as  I have herein) rather contrived after-the-fact and, consequently, incredible and not well-\nfounded in either law or fact. Perhaps the testimony of the uninsured respondent’s owner and \n\nJenifer L. Williams, AWCC No. H207751 \n \n12 \n \noperator, Ms. Rasheema  Britt, was the most revealing in this regard. Even though she was not \npresent at the time of the assault which resulted in the claimant’s head and face injuries, she \ntestified under oath that  based on some vague  alleged past interactions and conversations with \nthe claimant she “believes” the claimant was intoxicated at the time of the assault, the occurrence \nof which is not subject to reasonable dispute. And again, still, the claimant was never asked or \nrequired to submit herself to alcohol or drug testing either before or after the subject 9/11/2022 \nwork incident. (T. 173-203).    \n          Therefore, for all the aforementioned reasons I hereby make the following: \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n1. The stipulations contained in the prehearing order filed April 5, 2024, which \nthe  parties supplemented  and affirmed  on  the  record  at  the  hearing,  hereby  are \naccepted as facts.  \n \n2. The  claimant  has  met  her  burden  of  proof  in  demonstrating  she  sustained \ncompensable  injuries  to  her  head  and  face  directly  related  to  the  subject  work-\nrelated assault of September 11, 2022. \n                 \n3. The respondents have failed to meet their burden of proof in demonstrating that \nthe statutory provisions of either Ark. Code Ann. Sections 11-9-102(4)(B)(iv)(a)-\n(b), and/or of Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-102(4)(B)(i) and/or (iii) are \napplicable on these facts. \n \n4. The claimant is entitled to payment of all her related, reasonably necessary \n        medical bills and related expenses such as mileage.  \n \n5. Any issue(s) not specifically addressed herein are reserved for future litigation \nand/or determination. \n \nAWARD \n            The respondents hereby are directed to pay benefits in accordance with the “Findings of Fact \nand Conclusions of Law” set forth above. To the extent applicable herein, all accrued sums shall \nbe paid in lump sum without discount, and this award shall earn interest at the legal rate until paid \n\nJenifer L. Williams, AWCC No. H207751 \n \n13 \n \npursuant to Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-809, and Couch v. First State Bank of Newport, 49 Ark. \nApp. 102, 898 S.W.2d 57 (Ark. App. 1995); Burlington Indus., et al v. Pickett, 64 Ark. App. 67, \n983 S.W.2d 126 (Ark. App. 1998); and Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Sauer, 358 Ark. 89, 186 S.W.3d \n229 (2004).  \n          If they have not already done so, the respondents shall pay the court reporter’s invoice within \n20 days of their receipt of this opinion. \n IT IS SO ORDERED.  \n  \n                                              \n \n       Mike Pickens \n       Administrative Law Judge \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMP/mp","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H207751 JENIFER L. WILLIAMS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HOME TO COMMUNITY LIVING, INC. UNINSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION COMPLIANCE DIVISION, INS. CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 24, 2024 Hearing before the Arkans...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:49:22.370Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H207751-2024-09-25","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WILLIAMS_JENIFER_H207751_20240925.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}